Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”…The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend…“Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.” “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,”…Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

This alone is evidence of data tampering, but the resulting “adjusted” data doesn’t only show more warming, it is more linear. The only way to make the IPCC models work is to have a linear trend in temperatures. That is the smoking gun. CO2’s absorption of radiation isn’t linear, and CO2’s impact on temperatures wouldn’t be linear. The IPCC models are inconsistent with the molecular physics of CO2. The data is being altered in a manner that will make incorrect models accurate.

The Trump administration is debating whether to launch a governmentwide effort to question the science of climate change, an effort that critics say is an attempt to undermine the long-established consensus human activity is fueling the Earth’s rising temperatures.

The move, driven by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, has sparked a debate among top Trump administration officials over whether to pursue such a strategy.

A senior White House official, who asked for anonymity because no final decision has been made, said that while Pruitt has expressed interest in the idea, “there are no formal plans within the administration to do anything about it at this time.”

Pruitt first publicly raised the idea of setting up a “red team-blue team” effort to conduct exercises to test the idea that human activity is the main driver of recent climate change in an interview with Breitbart in early June.

The program will use “red team, blue team” exercises to conduct an “at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science,” the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations.

“The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals … provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science,” the source said.

“We are in fact very excited about this initiative,” the official added. “Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing.”

The disclosure follows the administration’s suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review.

Sunlight is by far the best disinfectant. Forcing Climate “Scientists” to defend themselves in a robust scientific debate that can’t rely upon unscientific claims of “peer-review,” “consensus,” and computer “models,” and force them to defend their conclusions based upon the scientific method, experimentation, reproducibility, geological records, thermodynamics, molecular/quantum physics and actual empirical data will quickly expose that the Climate Change Emperor has no clothes. It is time Toto takes a look behind the curtain. I’m pretty sure that what he finds will be pretty ugly.

I posted this in January. Roy Spencer predicted that Carl Mears (under pressure from the climate mafia) would corrupt his TLT data to bring it in line with the global warming scam…It has happened exactly as Roy predicted.

Here is more on the issue. You would think a 140% “adjustment” should raise some eyebrows, or at least get the person in charge of recording and publishing the “flawed” historic data fired.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

If a respected researcher can predict criminal behavior by others in his field, and accurately identify their MO, Congress has a responsibility to investigate these RSS “adjustments,” and at a very least fire the incompetent people in charge of the RSS equipment that was recording and publishing faulty data. There must be consequences for these actions. Either the people running the RSS equipment were incompetent, or the people making the “adjustments” are corrupt, either way, someone must be made to answer for these “adjustments.”

New Study Claims To Expose The ‘Science Charade’ Behind Some EPA Regulations

A new study highlights how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to game the rule-making system to cloak contentious policy decisions as based on science.

Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published a report to highlight the “perverse incentives involved in developing regulations” as part of EPA’s air quality setting standards.

BTW, the CO2 in your lungs can be as high as 40,000 ppm. You exhale CO2 with every breath. CO2 is plant food, and the earth’s capacity to support life as we know it ends when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. CO2 is necessary to regulate the pH of your blood. This essential life sustaining organic molecule has been ruled to be a pollutant by the EPA.

The Atlantic as an article titled: How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration. In the article, it highlights the same tactics used corrupt climate science are also being used to corrupt the other social sciences. Here are just a few quotes:

Flip Flopping on Critical Issues Due to Political Opportunity:

Prominent liberals…routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains.

Erasing/Re-Writing History:

In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone.

Completely Ignore the Costs, Focuses only on Political Gain:

“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.”

Eagerness to Sell-Out America and Americans for Political Gain:

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”

Claim Consensus on an Issue Where One Doesn’t Exist:

Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.

Liberal Media Attack Dogs Bully those that Dare to be Different:

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way…ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.” Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”

Simply Lie About Issues:

But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”

Researchers are Funded by Biased Liberal Sources:

Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program.

Liberal Bias and Conservative Censorship in Academia:

Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.”

Liberals Simply Promote and Support Idiotic Self-Destructive Ideas: Why Would Anyone Not Want Immigrants to Assimilate?

Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Everything is an Excuse to Redistribute Wealth: Why Work? Voting Democrat is Easier?

Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it. Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term.

Liberal Policies Hurt the Democrat Voters They Intent/Pretend to Help.

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most.

There are plenty more examples of the corruption of academic research to deliver a predetermined liberal political objective. Here is the audio of the article. It is well worth listening to. It exposes just how unconcerned Liberals are with the corruption of science, dividing America and undermining her interests, values, and culture. Liberal Immigration and Environmental Policies are destroying the Once Great Nations of Europe. We should not allow Liberals to repeat the mistakes of Europe here in America.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.

Paglia called what she said the Democratic Party had done to journalism “absolutely grotesque” and warned it would take decades to recover.

“It’s obscene,” she said. “It’s outrageous, OK? It shows that the Democrats are nothing now but words and fantasy and hallucination and Hollywood. There’s no journalism left. What’s happened to The New York Times? What’s happened to the major networks? It’s an outrage.”

“I’m a professor of media studies, in addition to a professor of humanities, OK?” she continued. “And I think it’s absolutely grotesque the way my party has destroyed journalism. Right now, it is going to take decades to recover from this atrocity that’s going on where the news media have turned themselves over to the most childish fraternity, kind of buffoonish behavior.”